Admin

The hurricanes of the last few weeks in the Caribbean have reinforced in my mind a growing sense that Caribbean states may be more and more facing a challenge of existential threats. (I prefer this idea to the discourse of ‘failed states’, which I find rather obnoxious and patronising; being associated with a political agenda of ‘humanitarian interventionism’ and the contemporary incarnation of the doctrine of imperial responsibility.) By existential threats I mean systemic challenges to the viability of our states as functioning socio-economic-ecological-political systems; due to the intersection of climatic, economic, social and political developments…

Comments

SALISES is engaged in a project called fifty-fifty that reflects on fifty years of independence in the Anglophone Caribbean and intends to look at the prospects for the next fifty years. Norman”™s timely call for a reflection on our existential condition fits perfectly with this project and i hope that we will be able to incorporate this concern in our efforts. Attached is a copy of the original proposal. SALISES is also having its annual conference at Mona in March 2011 (23-25) and it will be the first stage of the fifty-fifty process in which we look at the independence experience of small states in general and prospects for the mid-term future. I”™ve attached the call for papers for that as well (see Home Page of this blog).

Brian Meeks
Professor of Social and Political Change
Director, Sir Arthur Lewis Institute of Social and Economic Studies
Director, Centre for Caribbean Thought
The University of the West Indies, Mona,
Kingston 7, Jamaica

I would like to share some thoughts I have about your post which questions whether Caribbean countries are facing existential threats.

In short, I’m sad to say, but I do think we are facing such threats. In the spirit of what your questions suggest at the closing of the article, I think a new spirit and realization of active regionalism is in order if Caribbean states are ever to climb out of being in constant crisis mode. Additionally, I think greater engagement and use of the Caribbean diaspora could also be of great help in this process. It is on this latter point that I would like to focus the rest of my comments/thoughts.

Maybe this is too dramatic, but when I think about the Caribbean and all the issues that the countries in the region face (such as those you noted in your article), the image that comes to mind is that of a house fire. Now, when something catches fire in one’s house, an individual uses what they can to out the flames: they can get a fire extinguisher; run some water and throw it on the fire; grab a towel and beat the flames; or call other family members to join in doing any one or all of the above actions. One may also yell to their neighbors for support, hoping they come and assist. However, there is a point at which the fire spreads too far and gets too large for those inside the house to manage alone. At that point what is needed is reinforcements from outside of the house to control and eventually put out the fire. It is important to note that firefighters never run inside a burning edifice and turn their hoses on from that position to fight the flame, but rather, they stand outside and strategically control the flames from that position. Moreover, where such information can be gained and is useful, firefighters rely on testimonies concerning the original location of the flames given by those who were inside the house when the fire began, but have since exited. The firefighters then use this information to decide on the best way to attack the flames.

Now, I am certainly not suggesting that the Caribbean Diaspora is the panacea for all of the Caribbean’s problems. The parallel I am drawing speaks only to the point that the Caribbean Diaspora has a kind of access to resources and a vantage point that is different from those enjoyed by individuals within the region and thus, if there was much greater organized and coordinated strategic cooperation between Caribbean people still living in the region and those living outside, we may be able to effectively manage the challenges faced by Caribbean states.

In other words, what I think is in order is a people-led (as opposed to state-led) movement and push in the Caribbean to become more meaningfully connected with the Caribbean Diaspora (again, not through the state apparatus) in order to establish as solid, sustainable and activist partnership between Caribbean people and the Caribbean Diaspora. Both the movement and the Diaspora, I think, should be organized as a regionalist endeavor as opposed to being factioned along state lines.

I imagine such a partnership operating in the following way: Caribbean people on the ground could inform the Diaspora as to what the issues are. Then, the Diaspora could be consulted by academics, community leaders as well as progressive politicians and business people in the region concerning these and other matters this latter group sees as hindering the Caribbean’s advancement. The people and this progressive class of academics, community, political and business leaders could then inform the Diaspora as to what they think is needed in terms of possible solutions. With this information, the Diaspora could then lobby their local political representatives in their diaspora states in the interest of helping to bring about the changes in the Caribbean that the Diaspora has learned are needed (based on the information and insights gained from the people and the aforementioned progressive class).

Considering the physically concentrated manner in which Caribbean people live in parts of the US, UK and Canada, it is not entirely wishful thinking to suggest that, if the Caribbean Diaspora acted and spoke with a single voice in their respective countries and lobbied their representatives for Caribbean interests (asserting that as a community, they will only vote for representatives who plan to push policies and practices that are more favorable to the Caribbean), this manner of Diaspora diplomacy could actually be effective.

One of the areas in which I think Caribbean diaspora diplomacy could be effective is in lobbying for more and better aid and technology transfer to the Caribbean to assist in disaster preparedness and overall dealing with the effects of climate change. Without offence to our African brothers and sisters, if the governments of the UK, Canada and the US are willing and able to give so many millions to states like Ethiopia (where it is highly questionable whether a reasonable or acceptable amount of aid is going to the betterment of the people), I think a strong case can be made to have more adequate assistance directed to the Caribbean for the aforementioned initiatives.

Greater support for disaster preparedness and (in relation) climate change outfitting of the region is only one area that I think a partnership for diaspora diplomacy could be effective. However, I am confident that with the actual establishment of this Caribbean people-led movement and its firm partnership with an organized and sophisticated Diaspora, many more such issues could be uncovered.

Indeed, there are many many issues facing Caribbean people both in the region and in the diaspora that make a partnership for diaspora diplomacy a significant challenge. Be that as it may, I think it is worth at least entering into a discussion to evaluate its merits and potential as an integral aspect of the project of Caribbean self-determined advancement.

It is certainly my aim to play a meaningful, if not leading role in helping to establish this movement on the diaspora end of things.

In terms of what actually happens on the ground in the region, I think that the most sustainable, ethical, respectful and responsible approach is to allow Caribbean people still in the region decide for themselves how best to organize in the interest of eventually forming this partnership with the diaspora. Having said that, I do think that one of the necessary components to be established is some sort of new media forum (ie an online news and critical commentary journal/publication like Pambazuka.org) which would allow Caribbean people to communicate directly with the diaspora. Such a forum would be great as it would empower Caribbean people, scholars, and civil society leaders to report and critically articulate and analyze the issues Caribbean people are facing. This forum could then be used by the diaspora as a resource to guide and set the agenda of their diaspora diplomacy initiatives.

Now, to ensure that diaspora people are ready to be of most assistance to those still living in the region, I think the diaspora should consider doing the following:

1) Cultivating Caribbean Critical Consciousness for Change, or what I call, 4C-ing Change.

Outside of food, music, a few heroes (ie Marcus Garvey) and a limited amount of literature, the general population of Caribbean diaspora people born after the early 1970s seems to know very little about the emancipatory history and culture of political ideas that have and continue to come out of the Caribbean. I’m talking about the works and ideas of people like CLR James, Frantz Fannon, Walter Rodney, Eric Williams, George Beckford, Lloyd Best, as well as Professors Girvan, Levitt, Bogues, Meeks, H. Campbell and Trotz (to name a very limited few).

There needs to be radio programs, internet sites, book fairs, book readings, public lectures, plays, community publications, etc. aimed at helping the Caribbean diaspora in the process of 4C-ing Change. 4C-ing change through a grappling with the ideas of individuals like the aforementioned will cause Caribbean diaspora people to naturally and meaningfully come together and begin to work more fervently towards playing a role in helping the Caribbean tackle its most pressing issues.

2) After 4C-ing Change to a widespread and sustained level, the diaspora needs to become politically organized by forming an official think tank and/or lobbying group within their diaspora states. For these institutions to be effective, more Caribbean-focused researchers, policy analysts, political scientists, etc. will need to emerge. Such will likely and hopefully be the outgrowth of 4C-ing Change.

3) The Caribbean Diaspora think tank and or lobby group then needs to maintain a constant and close relationship between Caribbean scholars, as well as civil society, along with progressive business and political leaders living in the region. This can and should probably be done through partnering for the purpose of publishing research and policy papers, holding conferences and public lectures, setting up meetings and presentations with political leaders of Canada, the US and UK to present Caribbean issues to these leaders. This think tank and/or lobby group would need to secure funding from foundations, Caribbean philanthropists, community contributions (since 4C-ing Change would never stop), selling publications and hosting events.

With all of the aforementioned taking place in the region and the diaspora, I think the Caribbean would be greatly empowered in its efforts to deal with its ongoing challenges.

I think it is clear, judging from the reactions, that the views articulated are shared by many people. In terms of sustaining the conversation (apart from contributions to this forum), there are three or four of concrete suggestions that have come out.

You do not have to write a paper to participate in this Conference. The discussions which will take place are just as important. Let”™s hope that many people who are interested will attend and help ensure we get a deeper understanding of our situation and some practical ideas for policy and citizen action out of it. I know this is what Brian wants. I have accepted Brian”™s invitation to organise a Panel on “˜Existential Threats”™ for this Conference.

3. Anthony Morgan (a Caribbean who is finishing his Law degree in Canada) has proposed a partnership between the Caribbean homeland and the Caribbean Diaspora to respond to existential threats. One of the necessary components he is suggesting is a ” new media forum which would allow Caribbean people to communicate directly with the Diaspora (and) empower Caribbean people, scholars, and civil society leaders to report and critically articulate and analyze the issues Caribbean people are facing. This forum could then be used by the Diaspora as a resource to guide and set the agenda of their Diaspora diplomacy initiatives.” I think this is a good idea and that we should encourage Anthony to pursue it. The EPA list and my blog can be one of the jumping off points. It is particularly suitable for the younger, technologically savvy Caribbeans at home and abroad. By the way you can write Anthony at anthonynmorgan@gmail.com

4. Anthony is also proposing a set of Diaspora activities to be called “˜Cultivating Caribbean Critical Consciousness for Change”™, or “˜4C-ing Change”™. He makes the point that ” the general population of Caribbean Diaspora people born after the early 1970s seems to know very little about the emancipatory history and culture of political ideas that have and continue to come out of the Caribbean”. He is envisaging ” radio programs, internet sites, book fairs, book readings, public lectures, plays, community publications, etc. aimed at helping the Caribbean Diaspora in the process of 4C-ing Change… through a grappling with the ideas of individuals like the aforementioned will cause Caribbean Diaspora people to naturally and meaningfully come together and begin to work more fervently towards playing a role in helping the Caribbean tackle its most pressing issues”. More details are at http://www.normangirvan.info/girvan-existential-threats/comment-page-1/#comment-9691

It is a very ambitious goal but big things start with small initiatives. There is no doubt that the Diaspora has the resources and the energy to do it. Are not our people hungry to feel the self-respect, self-esteem and self-confidence that such a programme will engender?

That”™s all for now. The conversation will of course continue through this forum.

I nodded in agreement with every line of your piece on existential threats facing Caribbean states. It was just last night I had a discussion about the very same issue (certainly I did not call it existential threats), but I more glibly referred to the situation as the Caribbean suffering from some ‘conspiracy theory’ (the new buzz phrase). I keep thinking about the way corporations strategise, prepare business continuity and disaster risk management plans, form mergers and build on strengths. Could the leaders of our respective Caribbean nations think of doing likwise, or are they so insecure in their sovereignty?

No man is an island and I believe that in these challenging times, no island can stand alone. Norman, you have said that our thinking, institutions and structures no longer serve us. I would dare to go further and say that much of our thinking and many of our institutions and structures have ‘failed us’. Like the 12-step recovery progamme of addicts, the sooner we accept our failings, the sooner we will be able to mend our ways and begin to heal. Thanks for this long overdue discussion and long live this dialogue. May the results of these discussions be fruitful and contribute towards building the Caribbean’s immunity to the threats we face. If help is needed with the administrtive aspects of the conference Brian spoke about, I would be willing to volunteer my services.

“Men at some time are masters of their
fates: The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our
stars,But in ourselves, that we are underlings”
-William Shakespeare
Julius Caesar, Act I, Scene II

What Norman points out is symptomatic of our regional approach to disasters whereby focus has been stressed towards response and (to some degree) recovery. Whilst we have intellectually joined the international consensus that now recognizes that disasters are not ” natural”, but the result of human decisions, we seem to find it difficult to take the next step and actually implement the concepts of disaster reduction into policies on the ground. Weather in our region has proven once again that it is an equal-opportunity destroyer by continuing to visit destruction, suffering and economic hardship upon all, regardless of size, race, culture or economy, often impacting two or more countries either simultaneously or in blindingly quick succession.

Though it is no feat of intellect to understand that the unveiling of warehouses and the purchase of helicopters and other sexy equipment may play better in the polls (especially around election time) it is also simple to see that the reactionary approach will doom us to a playback loop of disaster-response-recovery-disaster wherein our leadership continues to play the role of decision-takers and not decision-makers.

I fully agree with Norman that the way we deal with disasters is emblematic of the way we deal with other aspects of sustainable development (including regional integration) and I also fully agree that it is an existential matter that needs profound reflection. Here”™s another quote I like:

” TWAS a dangerous cliff, as they freely confessed, though to walk near its crest was so pleasant; but over its terrible edge there had slipped a Duke and full many a peasant. So the people said something would have to be done, but their projects did not at all tally. Some said, ‘Put a fence ’round the edge of the cliff, ‘some, ‘an ambulance down in the valley.’ But the cry for the ambulance carried the day, for it spread through the neighbouring city. A fence may be useful or not, it is true, but each heart became full of pity for those who slipped over the dangerous cliff, and the dwellers in highway and alley Gave pounds and gave pence, not to put up a fence but an ambulance down in the valley”"”Joseph Malins (1895)

I share your view that Caribbean states may well be facing a challenge of existential threats. Like you, I also prefer that term to “failed states”. Apart from the considerable baggage the latter term carries, which you well described, it is used only in reference to political governance and, thus, does not cover the broader systemic threat you evoke. The greater frequency and severity of destructive hurricanes in recent years form part of a global weather pattern which has become evident over the past two decades. Climate scientists have attributed it to climate change, a number of whom consider that the rapidity and scale of such change could pose an existential threat to human civilization. That dire prospect, and how it could possibly be averted, has awakened academic interest in whether environmental changes caused the mysterious collapse of certain civilizations in the past, such as the Maya, the Cretan, and the Indus Valley civilizations.

With that objective in mind, Jared Diamond, an American evolutionary biologist and biogeography specialist conducted a number of case studies of past societal collapses, including that of the brilliant Maya civilization in the 8th century. He identified environmental mismanagement as a major cause of such collapses and concluded that failures of group decision-making was the principal reason for such otherwise inexplicable societal collapses of the most advanced societies of their epochs. That conclusion persuaded him to warn the world: “Lest one be misled into thinking that crashes are a risk only for small peripheral societies in fragile areas, the Maya warn us that crashes can also befall the most advanced and creative societies.” (Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, 2005).

Scientists recently found that ice at the north polar cap and on Greenland is melting at a much faster rate than predicted. The Greenland ice sheet is the world’s second largest body of ice after the Antartic ice cap. Its total volume, which has been calculated by radar and laser altimetry at 2,930,000 cubic kilometres, is melting at the rate of 195 cubic kilometres a year, according to the latest satellite measurements. If Greenland’s entire ice cap were to melt, it would lead to a global sea level rise of 23.6 feet, which would inundate most of the world’s major coastal cities. Many low-lying islands would simply disappear. In a recent briefing (10 August 2010) to a U.S. Congressional Committee, a panel of scientists informed it that a global temperature rise of 2Â°C to 7Â°C would mean the disappearence of Greenland’s ice sheet, and that sometime in the next decade the world might pass the tipping point that could put the world on course for that disaster.http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/10/greenland-ice-sheet-tipping-point

That doomesday scenario would be castastrophic for the environmentally-vulnerable Caribbean. Two Caricom member states lie below sea level and all but one of the others are island states. However, well before such a disastrous event occurs, if it does indeed take place, the scale and the seriousness of the environmental problems which Caricom countries will have to confront, because of climate change, could pose a serious threat of societal collapse. I would add the following challenges to those you enumerated as constituting portents of a systemic threat to the region: increased food insecurity from domestic food crop destruction (such as that of St. Vincent’s banana crop), from expected steep increases in world food prices and from a shortfall in internationally traded food grains due to food hoarding by major world producers; massive flooding and landslides, such as occurred in Pakistan last August which inundated one fifth of the entire country for several weeks, including millions of acres of the country’s best agricultural lands; salinization of aquifers, river estuaries, and ground water from sea water intrusion due to rises in sea levels, with the consequent impact on fresh water supplies; salinization of surrounding agricultural lands, with its negative impact on agricultural production; serious coastal and beach erosion, and pollution of coastal waters from heavy water runoff that washes away the topsoil, with their cumulative detrimental impact on the region’s tourist industry.

Those perceived challenges, added to the ones you enumerated, reinforce your conclusion that such phenomena cannot be treated as disconnected events and that they require both strategic thinking and a regional approach. I cannot agree with you more that our current thinking, institutions, and structures are totally inadequate for dealing effectively with the enormous challenges the region faces and that no single entity can provide all the answers. I would also add that the sheer scale of the challenges the region faces, the very high stakes involved, and the enormous price Caricom societies would have to pay if they fail to tackle them effectively, require a different type of strategic thinking.

One very important lesson to be drawn from Diamond’s very useful study is that no society, however advanced, is safe from societal collapse. Another lesson implied by his study is that, when faced with an extraordinary danger or challenge for which past experience can provide no reliable guidelines, societies must be bold and imaginative in their responses. They need to think “out of the box”, to envisage possibilities that fall outside established paradigms, to seriously consider what might, in normal circumstances, be dismissed as unthinkable or “impossible”.

Three formal Declarations on subjects relevant to this discussion which Caricom governments issued, or to which they subscribed, in the course of 2009, illustrate the great pertinence of your remark that no single regional or national entity (I am paraphraing your remark) can provide the answers. Neither the LILIENDAAL DECLARATION ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT, adopted by Caricom Heads of Government in July 2009, or the Declaration on Climate Change issued in September 2009 by the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), of which all but one Caricom state are members, made any mention at all of agricultural carbon sequestration which scientific studies, conducted by leading institutions in the U.S, Britain and China, had concluded was one of the most effective means of mitigating the impact of climate change. It appears that Caricom governments did not have that crucially information at their disposal, for if that did, I could not see them deliberately excluding a method of climate change mitigation which seems tailor-made for countries with a significant agricultural sector and embracing, instead, the Carbon Capture and Storage method (CCS), as the AOSIS Declaration did, which is really only suitable for industrialized societies. Those two declarations, evidently, did not benefit from inputs from the academic community or from environmental associations.

Land degradation is an aggravating factor in hurricane and other weather-generated disasters. There is a direct correlation between the extent of land degradation and the degree of destruction caused by flooding and mudslides. The severe flooding and mudslides from hurricanes which stuck Haiti within a four-week period in 2009, killing 800 people, destroying food crops and livestock, and causing $1 billion damage, were aggravated by the country’s extensive land degradation. According to a FAO scientific study (Global Assessment of Land Degradation and Improvement 1. Identification by remote sensing, FAO, 2008), the total land area of Guyana (43%), Haiti (42.6%), Suriname (30.93%), and Jamaica (30.68%) is degraded in the proportions indicated in brackets. There is also land degradation in other Caricom countries, to lesser degrees.

The Port of Spain Declaration of Commitment, adopted at the Summit of the Americas in April last year, examined and made recommendations on a very broad range of problems, challengers, and issues of importance to the entire region. Yet there was not a single reference to land degradation in the entire document, which contained 97 recommendations. The regional leaders perceived disaster prevention principally as a question of urban planning ““ zoning measures, building codes, and industrial and transport infrastructure. The recommendation on “disaster reduction, prevention, preparedness and response” was limited to “the strengthening of domestic planning and zoning measures and building codes as appropriate, in order to reduce risks, mitigate impact and enhance the resilience of future residential, commercial and industrial development”¦..to discourage developments in areas where risks cannot be reduced or impacts mitigated and to facilitate the protection or relocation of any areas of human settlement and sections of essential industrial and transport infrastructure that might be at risk.” There was no reference to conventional agricultural practices and unsustainable land use systems and land management methods, which are largely responsible for land degradation in rural areas. The concerns addressed in these issues were more relevant to New Orleans and Katrina, than to the Caribbean and Tomas. Mudslides are not a danger that is associated with hurricane damage in the U.S.

The Global Environment Facility (GEF) is a global partnership of 178 countries, international institutions, non-governmental organizations and the private sector, which collaborate on global environmental issues and support national sustainable development initiatives. A GEF report (Land Degradation as an Environmental Global Issue, 15 November, 2006), which summarized three recent scientific studies on the environmental effects of land degradation, concluded that land degradation is a global environment and development issue which affects food and water security, human health, economic development, environmental integrity and resource conservation – concerns that were supposedly addressed in the POS Declaration. Here is an excerpt from the GEF report:

“The clearest and best-researched linkage is between land degradation and climate change. Land degradation interrupts the regulating and provisioning services of ecosystems, in particular nutrient cycling, the global carbon cycle and the hydrological cycle. SLM [sustainable land management] critically depends upon the efficient functioning of these cycles. For example, carbon pools in soil and above-ground vegetation, particularly forests, are very large but easily disturbed. They are affected by unsustainable land management practices and by the type of LD [land degradation] that is prevalent (e.g. water erosion; deforestation; soil compaction). Estimates of historical contributions of agriculture to atmospheric CO, the amounts and rates of carbon lost as a consequence of deforestation and conversion of land to agriculture and other soil-vegetation-atmosphere carbon fluxes, all suggest that LD has had a very significant impact, through raising atmospheric CO concentrations, on climate.”

The report’s conclusions in respect of marine ecosystems and coastal waters are crucially important for Caricom countries: “Pollution of these basins as a consequence of LD is common and the processes are well understood. In marine ecosystems, coastal zones are the most susceptible to pollution-related impacts arising from LD. There is evidence of global impacts as large stretches of coast can be affected, extending to reef and large marine ecosystems. The contamination of water, ecosystems and food-chains by pesticides applied to or accumulating in soil is the best-verified impact linking land degradation with persistent organic pollutants. Soil erosion contributes to this contamination”¦.”

It is inconceivable that Caricom governments were aware of the GEF report and its conclusions, re the considerable negative multi-sectoral impact of land degradation, and decided not to include the issue as a topic for consideration in the Summit’s agenda. On the other hand, there is no good reason why they should not have been aware of the serious effects of land degradation, for such information is in the public domain. In a FAO news release issued on 2 July, 2008, the Director of FAO”˜s Land and Water Division, declared: ” Land degradation also has important implications for climate change mitigation and adaptation, as the loss of biomass and soil organic matter releases carbon into the atmosphere and affects the quality of soil and its ability to hold water and nutrients.” The inability of the soil to hold water is a major contributory factor to flooding.

Jared Diamond identified failures in group decision-making as the principal factor in past societal collpases that were caused by environmental change. An absolutely essential requirement for effective group decisions is the possession of accurate, up-to-date information on which to base such decisions. It is apparent that Caricom decision-makers did not possess vitally important information that would have permitted them to make better and more informed decisions in respect of the subjects considered in the three declarations discussed above. Yet, in every case, that information was in the public domain but Caricom politicians and government officials were, apparently, unaware of it.

Given the potentially disastrous consequences of such ignorance, how can such a situation be remedied? How can the reccomendations or conclusions that might emerge from SALISES, for example, make an input to government debliberations and decision-making? That situation calls for the setting up of new structures, as you suggested. One such structure is the multi-party parliamentary committee, along the lines of the US Congressional Committee and the UK Parliamentary Committee. Such committees would hold hearings before major legislation comes before parliament, or on any public issue on which the particular Committee would like to have expert non-partisan information. That is one way in which memebrs of parliament could tap the expert knowledge of academics, non-government professionals, and the expertise in specialized NGOs. If such hearings are open to the public, which is most desirable, the wider public would become more knowlegeable on important public issues, via reports in the press, which would surely lead to a better informed public opinion.

The institutional device of the parliamentary committee has provided members of the US Congress, the UK Parliameny, the French National Assembly and the parliaments of other European countries with the information to make informed decisions on important public issues. That is how the US Congressional Committee, mentioned above, was briefed on the tipping point danger of the melting of the north polar ice cap. It was one such committee, the U K Parliament’s Select Committee on International Development that gave potentially powerful ammunition to Caricom opponents of the CARIFORUM-EU EPA, in a detailed report that denounced the unfairness to the ACP countries of such agreements. The Select Committee’s damning report was posted on the UK parliament’s website, yet the information was not used by the EPA’s Caricom opponents in the debate on the issue. Apparently, the information that the Committee’s report was posted on the website and, thus, accessible to all was not known. That raises another issue – how to ensure that information on issues of importance to the region, which is already in the public domain, can be brought to the notice of national and regional actors in government and civil society? Unfortunately, I have no ideas to offer on that particular issue.

Senior government officials could be kept briefed on important developments in subject areas relevant to their ministerial responsibilities through another structure structure, a more informal one. Informal, open-ended groups of academics and civil society professionals could be constituted for each major subject area administerd by a government ministry. Regular (monthly?), informal brain storming sessions could be held, in which senior and middle-rank civil servants could discuss, learn about new developments, or be exposed to new ideas in their respective fields of responsibility.

Many, if not most, Caricom politicians would be hesitant to support such initiatives for fear that they might encroach on their pregoratives. If one Caricom government can be persuaded to adopt them and if that prove successful, others might follow. The new T&T government which, I understand, has declared itself in favour of transparent government might be prepared give favourable consideration to such initiatives.

The Caribbean states, and I beg to emphasize ALL of them, not only the traditionally viewed members of the CARICOM, OECS and ACS, are failing in more than one avenue to be on par with the rest of the world in governance and in keeping with international commitments.

The report:
REVIEW OF THE ECONOMICS OF CLIMATE CHANGE (RECC)
IN THE CARIBBEAN PROJECT: Phase I
CLIMATE CHANGE PROFILES IN SELECT CARIBBEAN COUNTRIES

Published by ECLAC (LIMITED, LC/CAR/L.250, 3 February 2010, ORIGINAL: ENGLISH)

of which I edited the chapter for the island of Aruba, says it all.

I am familiar with the Liliendaal Declaration on Climate Change and Development and the 2009 AOSIS declaration, presented at the UNFCCC COP 15 summit in Copenhagen.

The fact is that the Caribbean fails to comprehend all the issues involved in climate change and because it does not have all the information at hand fails to deliver an optimal and really empowering statement in support of in particular the island nations in the Pacific.

I am president of an international organization located in Aruba, dedicated to SIDS, and we recently became a member of the Global Campaign for Climate Action (www.gc-ca.org and http://www.tcktcktck.org).

Last year we tried in vain to get the leaders of ALL Caribbean nations, be it French, Dutch, English or Spanish speaking to form a united front.

We are very happy with the role GRENADA played at Copenhagen as president of AOSIS, but it wasn’t enough.

Too much at the regional level is left to politicians and too little to the civil society at large, who ironically more often do seem to have more information available.

I use climate change as an example, because it shows the Caribbean nations at their worst in terms of compliance with international obligations and their willingness to engage stakeholders in this respect.

Sixteen years after the Global Conference on the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States (SIDS)in Barbados most of the Major Groups in decision-making for sustainable development, as defined in Agenda 21, the manual for sustainable development are still NOT actively engaged in any REAL decision-making.

This I think is the single largest threat to all of the Caribbean nations.

As long as politicians and corruption and big time tourism have the upper hand, I do think we need to come up with a new term that does reflect the current status quo in the Caribbean, where de facto the rule of law and governance are failing.

I would venture “failing states” which does hint at its extreme consequence and final product, failed states, yet without the colonialist and neocolonialist connotations.